Who Really Wrote The Bible?
by Torlek
Summary: A humorous account of who really wrote the first canonized books of the Bible, and how they were canonized. [And teasing contradictory texts in Mishnaic and/or Talmudic style.]
1. Heavenly Voice

**Heavenly Voice**

Long ago, a few rabbis posing as scribes huddled together for a major announcement. A heavenly voice was about to announce the mortal whose words were also the words of the living God. In other words, whose words would get to become the first canonized books of the Bible. All of them made many arguments for the sake of Heaven just to get to this point.

Said Rabbi J, "The heavenly voice is on my side, guys. My words are the words of the living God."

Said Rabbi E, "Don't count on it! That voice will announce me as the Bible winner!"

Said Rabbi P, "Oh, really? My stuff will be determined to be the single correct version! It's only a matter of moments."

Said Rabbi D, "No way, pals! This, my masterpiece, will be judged as the one correct version to kick-start Project Bible. Your second-rate tidbits here and there are not up to the standards for authoritative consideration!"

Then did the heavenly voice indeed make a major announcement.

"Mashugana! Mashugana! All this!" came the pronouncement.

The scribes became startled and turned to one of their own, Rabbi R.

"What did the heavenly voice say?" they asked in unison.

Said Rabbi R, pointing to each leading scribe present, "Your words, and your words, and your words, and your words, are all words of the living God."

In truth, even Rabbi R could not comprehend the exasperation and even confusion that the heavenly voice had expressed.

* * *

_Author's Note: Chapters will be written out of order, and may be rearranged later on._

_All Bible quotations found in future chapters come from the NJPS version, unless specified otherwise._


	2. In The Beginning

**In The Beginning**

"Yahweh with one word created the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. He stretched out the skies like a tent cloth to shroud the Deep, and placed his secret court above the skies, founding it above the Higher Waters. In creating, Yahweh rode above the Deep, which rose against him. Tehom, queen of the Deep, sought to drown out Yahweh's Creation, but he rode against her in his chariot of fire, and bombarded her with hail and with lightning. Yahweh destroyed her vassal Leviathan with one great blow to the monster's skull, while he ended Rahab by thrusting a sword into her heart. The waters fled backward, awed by the voice of Yahweh, and Tehom fearfully surrendered. Yahweh shouted his triumph, and dried up the floods. He set the Moon to divide the seasons, and the Sun to divide the day and night. Observing Yahweh's victory, the Morning Stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. Thus the work of Creation was completed." (Harold Bloom, _The Book of J_)

Just what was there in the beginning, at least apart from God?

Said Rabbi J, "There was Leviathan! There was Leviathan! One big bad primordial monster!"

Said Rabbi P, "Calm down! There was a flat substance, but one otherwise unformed and void, deep within some really abysmal water."

Said Rabbi E, "Great! Terrific! Just wait until some wise guy comes along with some eternity of the world thesis! This used to be my story, you know!"

Said Rabbi D, "Does it really matter? We should only inquire about the greater scheme of things since the creation of man."

Popped in some Rabbi Eliezer in the name of R. D., who said, "Under no circumstances should we inquire about the greater scheme of things before the creation of man!"

For this interloper, belief in creation out of nothing was more than enough.

Meanwhile, Rabbi R had quite a decision to make.

"Rabbi J, do you really want Project Bible to start off with the claim that there's a monster beneath the bed?" he chided.

Turning to another, he said, "Rabbi D, I'm afraid what you said was a non-answer. It'll have to wait until the proper intro for your stuff."

Transcending the misunderstandings of all these scribes, the heavenly voice contemplated whether advanced competing models of cosmology, including the Big Bang and formation inside black holes, could be conveyed to these highly deliberative minds.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi E" never complained in real life about Aristotle's eternity of the world thesis. Interestingly, formation inside black holes as an alternative cosmological model to the Big Bang model is a very non-literal echo of _tohu wabohu we'hosek al-pene tehom_._


	3. What Does Dominion Mean?

**What Does "Dominion" Mean?**

"They serve us. That is the greatness of men. When the Creator finished making the sky, the ground, the sea, and this beast, He wasn't satisfied. He needed something greater, something to take dominion over it and subdue it." (Tubal-Cain, _Noah_)

What does "dominion" mean?

Began Rabbi J, enthusiastically, "It means domination!"

"God created the first man first," he declared, "before grasses, shrubs, trees, animals, and even the first woman. That's how important we men are!"

"Just as God defeated Leviathan in order to make earth and heaven," he stressed, "so did the first man exercise domination over the likes of cattle, wild beasts, birds, and even the first woman."

"How?" he asked rhetorically, "By naming. Naming is an act of power. It is an act of domination!"

"I mean, the first man did name the first woman not once, but twice," he added.

Rabbi P was not impressed.

"That's right, folks," he snarked, "this world is ours to do with as we wish. We need no commandments whatsoever, you see, but ten. Those alone will be given to Moses at Sinai!"

"No!" he snapped, "It means stewardship!"

"Right from the onset," he elaborated, "our early ancestors were allotted every seed-bearing plant life, but only to consume as food. These were not allotted to be chopped and thrown away on a whim! Heck, our early ancestors were allotted only these things as acceptable food!"

"The land is God's," he pointed out, "and we are but strangers resident with the Divine."

Said Rabbi D, "I must concur with Rabbi P. The heavens belong to God, and so do the earth and all that is on it."

It was Rabbi E's turn.

"What dominion?" he asked rhetorically, "What domination? What stewardship?"

"It doesn't matter whether this earth belongs to God or not," he explained, "although I think a more distant God suggests the latter."

"Ironically, this very distance rules out some direct mandate for us to exercise domination," he surmised.

"What matters," he went to the point, "is that we were gifted one world and one world only. We were not gifted two or more worlds. This means that, if we ruin or devastate this one world, there will be no one after us to fix it!"

While Rabbi R struggled to comprehend this, the heavenly voice understood and appreciated the underlying environmental perspective all too well.

* * *

_Author's Note: Contrary to popular misconceptions about Genesis 2:15 and 1:28, it was "Rabbi J" who subscribed to a domination theology, while it was "Rabbi P" who subscribed to a responsible stewardship theology. While the former never declared in real life that naming is an act of power, it has been argued by scholars that this was an expression of an underlying belief in a domination theology._

_No, "Rabbi P" never snarked in real life the words of Berakhot 1:4 (3c) from the Jerusalem Talmud, concerning his colleague's unique legal collection of only ten commandments somewhere._

_No, "Rabbi E" never paraphrased in real life the environmental message of Kohelet Rabbah 7:13 from an eighth-century midrash; the latter was influenced by the "distant God" perspective of the former._


	4. Original Sin And Foil

**Original Sin And Foil**

Just what is the moral nature, or inclination, of human beings?

Said Rabbi J, "We are all inclined towards wickedness, and only wickedness! The schemes of our minds are evil from our youths! Not only that, but every scheme hatched in our minds is nothing but evil, every single time!"

Snarked Rabbi P, "Right! We, corrupt by choice and condemned by justice, have produced progeny that are both corrupt and condemned? Sin came into the world, not least because of that oh-so forbidden tree of knowledge of yours, and spiritual death came through sin?"

The latter continued, "I say that God saw all our inclinations that had been made, and deemed them to be very morally good! I say that God saw even that oh-so forbidden tree of knowledge of yours, and deemed it to be very morally good for eating!"

The former shot back, "Right! We are naturally good, and it is only through human institutions that we become wicked?"

Off to the side, Rabbi E whispered to Rabbi R, "I just love these high-stakes scribal debates! Where else can you get fundamental subjects, such as original sin and its foil, to be discussed?"

Rabbi D stepped forward and put forth his own position to the debaters, "God has set before us life and death, and also good and evil. Not only must we choose life, but we can realize it!"

Rabbi R could not help but agree with Rabbi D.

"Amen, Brother!" he declared, which pleased the heavenly voice.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi P" never snarked in real life the words of the Christian St. Augustine to misconstrue his colleague's opinion deliberately, nor did he snark Paul the Apostle's words in Romans 5:12. Scholarly speaking, the position of "Rabbi J" concerning "original sin" was more pessimistic than those later developments._

_Likewise, no, "Rabbi J" never snarked in real life the words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to misconstrue his colleague's opinion deliberately._


	5. God's Bodies (Or Not)

**God's Bodies (Or Not)**

The sages, Rabbi J, Rabbi E, Rabbi P, and Rabbi D, declared God to have a body. Rabbi R concurred.

However, the heavenly voice scoffed without hesitation at their primitive consensus. The incorporeal reaction could never, ever be the rolling of one's eyes.

Said Rabbi E, "God is oh-so-fluid! He can become manifest to us in one place or in many places! He, at any time, can become manifest to us in one body or in many bodies! Just as the foreigners' gods can become alive in many statues, so can our God, and then some!"

Said Rabbi J, "I'll go further than you! God has soles, ankles, knees, loins, hips, fingers, arms, a neck, a head, a chin, a mouth, a tongue, nostrils, and eyes! One day, someone lucky enough to receive a heavenly vision could even measure the span of each of these parts!"

The heavenly voice reacted with the desire to do a facepalm. No corporeal hand or corporeal head was handy, however.

Said Rabbi P sarcastically, "Yes, that's right, so much so that each body part has a secret name!"

"None can see God's face and live!" he threw down his proverbial hammer and continued, "Moreover, God, has one body only! It is the Presence, something blinding with magnificent radiance all around! This Presence, in turn, sets up shop only in the Sanctuary!"

Rabbi D felt uncomfortable with how the discussion before him unfolded.

"We must be most careful for our sakes," he expressed his being terrified, "We cannot see a shape when God speaks to us out of the fire!"

"God has one body only," he stated before arguing, "but it can only be in heaven! In this world, God's so-called 'manifestation' is not some Presence, but rather the Name!"

Unbeknownst to them all, including Rabbi R, the heavenly voice turned to a human soul yet to be born, yet one that was appointed.

"One day, you will challenge those who follow them, challenge them to liken any single body, any single form, to Me," came the Divine pronouncement.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi J" never paraphrased in real life the extreme anthropomorphism of the _Shi'ur Komah_; the latter was influenced by the former._

_The human soul spoken to by the heavenly voice is that of the first truly monotheistic prophet in the Bible, Second Isaiah._


	6. Divine Conception (Or Not)

**Divine Conception (Or Not)**

Is Divine conception possible?

Began Rabbi J, enthusiastically, "Absolutely is Divine conception possible! I'll add that, not only is this great miracle possible, but it comes in the form of a special, personal visitation in the form of a body! Oh, and earlier, I gave my description of that body."

"I mean," he continued, "God visited the likes of Sarah as had been promised, no?"

Snarked a most disagreeable Rabbi P, "Great! You might as well have proclaimed something equally special!"

Indeed, he merely ratcheted up the sarcasm.

"Hail Sarah," he said, "not just favoured one, but full of grace, also! The Divine is with you! Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Isaac!'"

His sarcasm was met with utter astonishment on the part of his colleagues.

He continued, nonetheless, "God merely took note of Sarah as had been Divinely promised! God merely remembered her as had been said Divinely! God merely granted special providence to her!"

Despite his disclosed views on Divine bodies, Rabbi E felt a bit squeamish. To him, dreams served as the primary means of Divine communication with mortals. If physical manifestations in the presence of mortals had to be involved, he preferred those of angels.

Spoke Rabbi E, "I must concur with Rabbi J, however reluctantly. Divine conception is possible, but I must stress that this involves no sexual encounter at all! This Divine intervention does, however, require close proximity to the Divine, to God."

Stated Rabbi D, "Well, based on what I said earlier, I must concur with Rabbi P."

Unbeknownst to the debaters and even to Rabbi R, the heavenly voice scoffed at the varying opinions that had been aired. None of the mortals could grasp that every human conception was a Divine conception from the outset, formed wisely so as to combine miraculously organs, arteries, tissues, and sinews. None of them could grasp fully that, were any of these to malfunction badly enough, no human would survive, let alone before the Divine.

* * *

_Author's Note: 'Tis the season, hence the chapter._

_No, "Rabbi P" never snarked in real life any paraphrase of the first part of the Catholic "Hail Mary" prayer, so as to misconstrue the Divine Conception position of "Rabbi J" regarding Sarah's conception of Isaac. The three subsequent declarations are, in fact, paraphrases of at least three Jewish translations of Genesis 21:1 (NJPS, Judaica Press, and Kaplan), translations which render _pakad_ as anything but "visit."_

_The perspective of the heavenly voice is inspired by the Jewish blessing _Asher Yatzar_ ("Who Formed")._


	7. Angels Or No Angels

**Angels Or No Angels**

Should one believe in angels?

Exclaimed Rabbi E, "Yes! Absolutely! Absolutely should one believe in angels!"

"Once upon a time, the patriarch Jacob dreamed," he elaborated, "He beheld not just some ladder, but a big and beautiful stairway. Travelling up and down on this were – you guessed it – angels."

"That's why Bethel is a sacred place," he smirked.

"Another time," he continued, "an angel caused a donkey to talk, preventing the foreigner Balaam from cursing our ancestors."

"Oh, oh," he spoke before forgetting, "there's this one Angel of God who traversed in front of our ancestors in the form of a pillar of fire!"

It was the turn of Rabbi J.

"Of course angels exist," he said, "and not just good angels, but fallen angels, too."

"It was fallen angels, or sons of God, who took wives for themselves and sired the Nephilim before the Flood," he explained.

"Two good angels, however, flanked the LORD in a personal appearance before Abraham," he added.

"Then there's the one Angel of the LORD," he mentioned, "It was this one Angel who appeared to Moses himself, from a burning bush."

Then Rabbi D quipped, "Who cares?"

Some in his school believed in angels, while others did not.

Rabbi P would have none of this.

"This is all heresy!" he snapped, "According to you two, there can even be two powers in Heaven! Your one big Angel can even be some Logos of the living God, holding all things together and binding all the parts, so that they don't disappear or break up!"

"In all my stories," he spoke more calmly, "no angels were present, for this world is an ordered one. The way to commune with God is through specific priests performing specific sacrifices in specific manners during specific times."

The offended ones took the opportunity to chide their colleague.

"So says one whose school trains students claiming to have seen exotic angels such as Chayot Ha Kodesh, Ophanim, and Hashmallim!" countered Rabbi E.

"So says one whose school assigns wrong roles to the Cherubim," pointed out Rabbi J, "Like, a lowly buffer for God's podium, as opposed to elite guards?"

While Rabbi R was impressed with this debate, the heavenly voice was not. The participants did not appreciate that any human could inadvertently become a Divine messenger during some appointed time.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi P" never mentioned in real life Plato's binitarianism as a widespread belief within Second Temple Judaism, so as to misconstrue the "Angel of God" or the "Angel of the LORD."_

_Likewise, no, "Rabbi E" did not know in real life the angelic ranks according to Ezekiel._


	8. Marrying Your Brother's Widow

**Marrying Your Brother's Widow**

"'Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife' (Lev. 18:16) and '[When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family.] Her husband's brother shall unite with her' (Deut. 25:5). Both of them were spoken simultaneously, such that the mouth is unable to utter and the ear unable to hear." (_Jerusalem Talmud_, Nedarim 3:2)

How should marriage to one's brother's childless widow, or levirate marriage, be treated?

Began Rabbi J, "This is a time-honored custom of our people. Failure to perform this could invite negative Divine consequences."

Added an enthusiastic Rabbi D, "You underestimate the value of this custom. I say it's Divinely inspired. I say…"

Snapped a surprisingly offended Rabbi P, "What? Are you two crazy? It's an abomination! It's…"

"Allow me to continue, good sir!" demanded Rabbi D, "I say it's a commandment! Men ought to be publicly shamed if they weasel their way out of this! A childless widow ought to be empowered to inflict public humiliation upon her weasel of a brother-in-law!"

"This complete sacrilege is crazier than even I thought!" lamented Rabbi P, "In a very twisted way, Rabbi J is half-right. There is a connection between levirate marriage and negative Divine consequences."

"However," he continued, "it is the very fulfillment of this abomination that is levirate marriage, rather than abstention from it, that invites negative Divine consequences!"

"Just how bad will they be?" he asked rhetorically, "Worse than outliving one's children, the consequences of having sexual relations with one's uncle's wife! Nothing but barrenness will arise from levirate marriage!"

Feeling neglected, Rabbi J spoke up, "You're quite passionate about this particular topic, aren't you?"

"It's because I've got a bigger bombshell on the institution of marriage than this exceptional abomination," Rabbi P alluded to broader thoughts of his on the institution of marriage.

Rabbi J and Rabbi D awaited the bombshell to come. So did Rabbi E and Rabbi R, and so did the heavenly voice.

* * *

_Author's Note: In real-life hindsight, it appears that the Jerusalem Talmud understated the extent of disagreement on this topic between all the relevant parties. Not only was the extent of disagreement between "Rabbi D" and "Rabbi P" understated, but the position of "Rabbi J" was neglected altogether._


	9. One Man, One Woman

**One Man, One Woman**

The moment came for Rabbi P to deliver on the bombshell that he had committed to, for he had more fundamental thoughts on the institution of marriage.

"Marriage shall consist only of a union of a man and a woman," he began, "One man, one woman, folks! That's it! No more!"

"God created us in the Divine image," he stressed, "in the Divine image did God create us! One man and one woman did God create the first of us!"

The scribe then chastised Rabbi J.

"Rabbi J," he spoke, "for someone who wrote that a man and a woman become one flesh by clinging to one another, you completely dropped the ball by condoning deviant unions!"

He then announced to everyone, "You shall not marry a woman and another to rival one another as long as the first one is alive!" [1]

All who were within earshot of Rabbi P were stunned. Rabbi J was stunned, for his narratives condoned the marriage of two or more women to a single man. Rabbi E was stunned, also, for his narratives equally condoned the marriage of two or more women to a single man.

Rabbi D was surely stunned. Not only did he learn the real reason for his colleague's rather passionate opposition to levirate marriage, but this same reason could be applied to his own laws on kings, which were nowhere near as restrictive.

Rabbi R was stunned most of all. The broader community was surely not ready for what he thought was an outright sexual revolution.

"Rabbi P, perhaps you should phrase that poetically as 'woman and her sister'?" he asked his colleague, seemingly innocuous. His motive, however, was to nip any potential sexual revolution in the bud.

Most sarcastic of all, however, was the heavenly voice. It was Divinely perceived that the scribal wannabe settled for a society in which a man could not pay a bride price to more than one woman's father. Neither ethical monogamy nor ethical non-monogamy, or polyamory, entered the minds of the human debaters.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, no character in this chapter uttered in real life the opening sentence of the Federal Marriage Amendment and its social conservatism. Nonetheless, it has been argued by scholars that none other than "Rabbi P" sought to prohibit polygamy, specifically polygyny, far earlier than the Essenes of Qumran and their Damascus Covenant._

_[1] Basically, the Leviticus 18:18 phrase _ishah el ahotah_ was interpreted idiomatically, not literally, by its author._


	10. Bad Things, Good People

**Bad Things, Good People**

Why do bad things happen to good people?

The sages, Rabbi J, Rabbi E, Rabbi P, and Rabbi D, decided to tackle this existential problem of evil.

Said Rabbi J, "God is always good! We may all be inclined towards wickedness only, and every scheme in our minds may be nothing but evil from our youths, but we're all still here. If God is not always good, we wouldn't be alive today."

"However, God is not all-powerful," he continued, "Humans can hide much from the Divine, up to and including themselves. God had to be manifest in this world to see personally the evil committed within Sodom and Gomorrah."

Said Rabbi E, "While I won't go that far about the moral nature, or inclination, of human beings, I must agree that God is always good, yet not all-powerful."

"My reason for this?" he asked rhetorically, "God can make a stone too difficult to move in a personal capacity."

Then, he introduced a small scroll to his colleagues, holding it with his hand.

"This," he described, "is a wonderful poem on the subject. I don't expect this to be part of our immediate collaboration on Project Bible, but it's about when bad things happened to a good person."

The scribe passed the scroll to Rabbi D first. Upon reading it, the latter became unimpressed.

"Well," suspired the unimpressed scribe, "it's a good thing this 'poem' of yours won't be part of the immediate results. What is being argued here is downright wrong!"

"Blessed shall we be if we obey God," he opined, "Cursed shall we be if we disobey!"

"That's right," snarked the author, "Blame the victim!"

Rabbi P was next to receive the scroll, now closed. He did not bother to reopen it.

"This," he disclosed, "is not a sanctification of God's Name in writing. This is libel against the Name!"

"God is all-powerful!" he snapped, "God is great! God is sovereign!"

The scroll ended up with Rabbi J, who did read the contents.

"A lot of words here are too obscure," the literary critic commented, "This needs an accompanying fable, a simple beginning to lead to the poem, and a simple ending at the end of it all. God tests us, you know."

While Rabbi R looked on, the heavenly voice was impressed with Rabbi E's position concerning bad things happening to good people.

* * *

_Author's Note: __The scroll being discussed is none other than the Book of Job. It has been argued by scholars that the longer Poem was composed by "Rabbi E," while the shorter Fable (Chapters 1, 2, and 42) was composed by "Rabbi J." __While this ancient work may be outside the Torah, the human suffering of Joseph and the later Israelite slaves is not._

_Meanwhile, no, "Rabbi E" never paraphrased in real life the omnipotence paradox. Still, that none of the narratives of the crossing of the Red Sea are attributed to him speaks volumes._


	11. Human Or Divine Actions?

**Human Or Divine Actions?**

"The human asks, 'Why don't You actually do something about all the evil, suffering, and devastation in this world?' God responds gently, 'I did do something. I sent you.'" (Anonymous Jewish story)

"Like I said, God is always good, yet not all-powerful," Rabbi E reminded his colleagues.

He was not finished with his argument.

"Long ago," he elaborated, "A man in the very presence of God asks, more or less, 'Why don't You actually mark well the plight of your people? Why don't You actually heed their outcry? Why aren't You actually mindful of their sufferings? Above all, why don't You actually do something?'"

He continued, "God then answered, also more or less, 'I have done all those things, though, and then some. That is why I am sending you." [1]

"This happened to be none other than Moses, by the way," he revealed.

Then Rabbi J intervened, "The first part of the Divine response was my line, by the way."

"That's not the point," the interrupted scribe went back to his point, "Besides, at least four other human heroes in my accounts are focused upon for their actions, not God's. They really were partners with God."

Upon hearing this, however, a look of concern appeared on the face of the intervening colleague.

"I think you're going overboard with the human emphasis," he expressed, "It was God who came down to rescue our people."

For his part, Rabbi P could not contain his anger.

He then exclaimed, "You really need to rethink your downplaying of Divine intervention!"

"In my more proper account," he explained, "the good fortunes that came during the time of your so-called 'heroes' were not due to them, but due to God! Even Moses, who I'm absolutely sure was a mere eighty-year-old man during the great redemption, cannot receive even partial credit for this!"

It was time for Rabbi D for speak up.

"I must concur with Rabbi E," he made known, "God appoints true prophets, in whose mouths Divine words are put. They, in turn, speak what has been commanded of them."

While Rabbi R took in everything that was said, the heavenly voice nitpicked Rabbi E's limited position, as if only his human heroes could be human partners with the Divine in making the world a better place.

* * *

_Author's Note: Given that the longer Poem in the Book of Job was authored by "Rabbi E," it is not much of a stretch for him to foreshadow Cecil B. de Mille's cinematic Moses asking first about the Israelite slavery in _The Ten Commandments_. __As for the four other human heroes of "Rabbi E," they are Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Balaam._

_So, despite traditional opposition to "partners with Deity in repairing the world," based on its deviation from supposed origins in Jewish mysticism, not only is this concept closer to _tikkun olam_ defined in the Mishnah, but this actually has its Biblical origins in the deliberate emphasis by "Rabbi E" on meaningful human actions over Divine intervention._

_[1] Exodus 3:9-10._


	12. Free Will Or Destiny

**Free Will Or Destiny**

To what extent is there free will? To what extent is there destiny?

Said Rabbi J, "It's free will all the way, folks!"

Added an enthusiastic Rabbi E, "Seconded! I'll double down and say that human free will can even surprise God! I mean, not for nothing did Moses go back and even blame God for the added evil caused to our people! The unfortunate Pharaoh did catch God off guard with the hardened heart, you know."

Snapped an offended Rabbi P, "You'd better watch your mouth! You ought to be sanctifying God's Name with your speech, not besmirching it!"

Suggested a level-headed Rabbi D, who stepped in, "Like I said before, we must choose our courses of action throughout our lives. That said, surely God is great enough to have foreknowledge of what is to come! Not for nothing was it Divinely pronounced that our people would stray into idolatry!"

While the heavenly voice was sympathetic towards the words of Rabbi D, the auditory reaction was one of silence.

"God is greater," stressed a defensive Rabbi P in a tone that his colleagues deemed quite fanatical, before continuing, "God is greater than having mere foreknowledge. I say that it's all destiny! I say that God hardened the ill-fated Pharaoh's heart directly!"

Shot back Rabbi E, "This predestination stuff of yours is sheer insanity to the next level. What next? Double predestination?"

It was Rabbi D's turn to make his next opinion known.

"For someone who stated," he spoke, "that God deemed all our inclinations to be very morally good, this outright denial of human free will is most disappointing."

While Rabbi R was processing everything that had been spoken, the heavenly voice could only lament that it would take not just centuries, but millennia, before humans would better appreciate Divine knowledge of the future as not being absolute, despite Divine knowledge of all future probabilities, as well as appreciate the Divine playing with dice.


	13. Approaches To Divine Revelation

**Approaches To Divine Revelation**

How were commandments conveyed directly by the Divine?

"With spoken words," began Rabbi D, "We heard nothing but a voice uttering the sound of these. God gave commandments clearly and unequivocally to us."

Rabbi E was not so sure. Just as he had not been absolutely confident in Rabbi J's assertive opinion on Divine conception, he was equally hesitant now.

"Don't be so sure about it," he countered, "I will say that sound was involved, but that sound could have been thunder or some other noisy sound, rather than the sound of spoken words."

On the sidelines, Rabbi J and Rabbi P wondered why this particular debate unfolded before them in the first place. Both of them took for granted the position of Rabbi D, without realizing the deeper ramifications of this.

"There were commandments that at least two of us here can agree were given with spoken words, so long as we listened intently," conceded Rabbi E, "I'm sure no one will say preposterously that we listened only to the words, 'I the LORD am your God' and 'You shall have no other gods.'"

He proceeded to deliver what he thought could be a bombshell of his own.

He spoke, "There existed, however, the rest of God's will, and this was given within a noisy sound. In the midst of non-verbal communication, the mortal intermediary translated what was given into verbal speech, which was subsequently committed to writing."

Rabbi P was amazed at what he had just heard.

"That is so out of this world!" he exclaimed his amazement. His colleague was not amused.

"So says one whose school trains students claiming absolutely Divine inspiration after having experiences from out of this world!" Rabbi E shot back.

For his part, Rabbi R settled upon only ten statements as having been commanded without translation by a mortal intermediary.

Beyond human debate, the heavenly voice did contemplate the different approaches to Divine revelation that had been employed. There had indeed been a significant number of commandments, much greater than ten, that had been capable of being dictated to a human audience playing a stenographic role without needing a mortal intermediary. Equally important, however, was that there had indeed been a similarly significant number of commandments to be written that could only be conveyed within a noisy sound, requiring co-revelation, or human participation through interpretation and misinterpretation.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi E" did not anticipate in real life the words of Makkot 24a from the Babylonian Talmud, nor did he know in real life the out-of-this-world accounts of Ezekiel and Zechariah._

_Meanwhile, the final paragraph references two opposing theologies of revelation: dictation theory and participatory theory._


	14. Which Ten Commandments?

**Which Ten Commandments?**

Which Ten Commandments had been commanded without translation by a mortal intermediary?

Rabbi J gave a piece of his mind, "No deals or dealings with pagan inhabitants of the land who ought to be expelled, no making of idols, eat unleavened bread for seven days during the corresponding Feast, commit firstborn males of select species to prescribed sacrificial rituals, no working on the seventh day, do pilgrimages three specific times during the year, no offering of sacrificial blood with anything leavened, no letting the Passover sacrifice remain until the next morning, bring the choice first fruits of the harvest to a nearby temple, and not delay in committing firstborn males of select species to prescribed sacrificial rituals."

"Only in accordance with these Ten Commandments, the authentic Ten Commandments, did God make a covenant with us," he added. [1]

Rabbi E spoke next, "All that had been Divinely communicated, and all that is to be done faithfully, has been contained in my Book of the Covenant alone." [2]

"Still," he continued, "What ten? I've got a lesser number of statements introducing my Book of the Covenant: no other gods but God and no making of any image, plus no murder, no adultery, no kidnapping, no bearing false witness, and no scheming to acquire one's neighbour's household."

Then Rabbi D said, "There are indeed Ten Commandments. They do not come from your very lousy, third-rate attempt at a so-called 'legal collection,' Rabbi J. A number are the same ones from your superceded Book of the Covenant, Rabbi E."

"The others are these," he added, "God is our God, not to swear falsely in God's name, keeping every seventh day as a day of rest, and to honour one's father and mother."

It was Rabbi P's turn.

"I must concur with Rabbi D," he stated, "but with the caveat that the reason to keep every seventh day as a day of rest is because God rested on the very first seventh day, after creating the heavens, this world, and all therein during a span of six days."

While Rabbi R agreed with two of his colleagues, the heavenly voice did not budge about a much greater number of commandments than ten, including both competing lists, that had been capable of being dictated to a human audience playing a stenographic role without needing a mortal intermediary.

* * *

_Author's Note: The wording of the last commandment listed by "Rabbi J" is based on the suggestion of Bekhor Shor that Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 expressed an idiom and were not meant to be taken literally. A future chapter will cover this!_

_In any event, "Rabbi J" could not have been the author of both the Ritual Decalogue and the supplementary commandments spoken by "Rabbi D" in this chapter; one or the other, but not both._

_More importantly, it has been suggested by scholars that "Rabbi E" had a shorter list of commandments preceding the Covenant Code._

_[1] Exodus 34:27._

_[2] Exodus 24:7._


	15. What Is Murder?

**What Is Murder?**

God commanded, "You shall not murder."

Rabbi E was punctilious in committing these words to writing. So was Rabbi P. So was Rabbi D, for that matter. Rabbi J, however, was taking a nap.

Just what is murder, however?

Some time later, Rabbi E, Rabbi P, and Rabbi D agreed that premeditated homicide was murder, which pleased the heavenly voice. They also agreed that accidental homicide was not murder, which pleased the heavenly voice, as well. Rabbi P and Rabbi D agreed further that mercy killing was murder, however, which pleased the heavenly voice.

On the sidelines, however, was Rabbi J, writing his sensational account of one brother killing his brother in the middle of a passionate quarrel. He paid no heed to whether the killer premeditated the homicide or not, and even had the Divine character not put that killer to death.

The kumbaya shared by the other rabbis eventually came to an end. Rabbi E tended to a story about a patriarch going through the motions of sacrificing an unnamed son.

"About clean sacrificial animals: secular slaughter for eating is the way to go, folks," declared Rabbi D.

"What?" snapped Rabbi P, "That's murder! Bloodguilt ought to be imputed to any who does this! Clean sacrificial animals may be slaughtered and consumed only as part of a well-being offering, and this is an eternal statute!"

"Calm down," Rabbi E chimed in, having finished his story, "Debating about slaughtering clean sacrificial animals is not as important as the need to slaughter one's firstborn son as a sacrifice."

Rabbi J heard these words from where he sat, and he nodded in agreement.

"Shame on you!" came a sharp rebuke from Rabbi D, "Shame on you for advocating real ritual murder!"

Rabbi P nodded, for more or less did he second his colleague's sharp rebuke. For now, he paid no heed to the two stories written out of his sight.

"Nearby neighbours do this abomination already!" continued Rabbi D, "By the way, they – the Amalekites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and even the Girgashites – ought to be wiped out, without a soul remaining alive!"

"I thought it was just the Midianites, no?" interjected Rabbi P.

The heavenly voice was most unimpressed, for every human participant in the debate, including Rabbi R, had condoned murder in one form or another.

* * *

_Author's Note: No, "Rabbi J" did not take a nap in real life concerning the commandment against murder. This is merely a reference to the absence of this in the legal collection attributed to him, the Ritual Decalogue of Exodus 34. However, it has been suggested, scholarly speaking, that the attribution of this legal collection to him may be incorrect, and that his own Ten Commandments may have been identical to those of "Rabbi E" and "Rabbi D," before redaction (though not of the final "Rabbi R") did its work._

_Meanwhile, the story of "Rabbi E" refers to a version in which Abraham actually slaughtered his son, but it has been suggested, scholarly speaking, that the son was originally unnamed._


	16. Unleavened Haranguing

**Unleavened Haranguing**

"Now, that which is singled out from a more inclusive statement is meant to teach us about the whole statement. Hence, just as on the seventh day it is optional, so all the other days, it is optional." (_Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael_, Pisha 8)

God commanded, "For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread."

Rabbi J was punctilious in committing these words to writing. [1]

So was Rabbi E. [2]

So was Rabbi P. [3]

While Rabbi D did commit these words to writing himself, he was preoccupied with another matter concerning the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Some time later, they got into an argument.

"Rabbi D," began Rabbi P, "You really need to not talk out of both sides of your mouth about eating unleavened bread!"

"Whatever do you mean?" Rabbi D asked for clarification.

"Look at you!" the former snapped, "Out of one side of your mouth, you declared that we should eat unleavened bread for seven days. Out of the other side of your mouth, however, you declared that we should eat unleavened bread for six days!" [4]

"I know where your priorities are," he continued his unleavened haranguing, "Listen! Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are two separate festivals! The first festival, Passover, lasts for one whole day. The second festival, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, lasts for seven whole days, after the festival of Passover!"

While Rabbi E was in agreement, at least for now, Rabbi J was curious about all this.

"Guys," he wondered, "what is Passover? Why is this night different from all other nights?"

The scribe who agreed was stunned by his colleague's abject lack of knowledge about the festival of Passover. He decided to bring him over to one corner of the room to explain its cardinal importance towards maintaining their collective identity.

For his part, Rabbi P resisted the urge to react with a facepalm. His attention was squarely on Rabbi D.

"May God bless denominations of ours that commit to eating unleavened bread for eight straight days," he spoke, "Heaven forbid that some wise guy might take advantage of your words someday to declare eating this on the last day to be optional, and then infer some broad statement about eating this on all other days but the first day to be optional, too!"

While Rabbi R looked on, the heavenly voice became exasperated.

* * *

_Author's Note: In hindsight, the scholarly joke is on the _Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael_. Three major competing schools mandated eating unleavened bread during all seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. However, there was no such agreement about eating unleavened bread during the preceding, one-day Passover._

_No, "Rabbi J" did not, in real life, come up with the first of the Four Questions asked during Passover._

_Likewise, no, "Rabbi P" never snarked in real life the very words of the _Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael_._

_[1] Exodus 34:18._

_[2] Exodus 23:18._

_[3] Exodus 12:15 and especially Leviticus 23:6 (though this one comes from "Rabbi H")._

_[4] Deuteronomy 16:3 vs. 16:8._


	17. Golden Calves, Discourse Broken

**Golden Calves, Discourse Broken**

"And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai." (_Babylonian Talmud_, Shabbat 17a)

What was argument for the sake of Heaven?

Four major competing schools arguing about which collection of narratives and which collection of laws represented the single correct version of Divine revelation.

What was argument that was not for the sake of Heaven?

Such was any ad hominem attack by one major school on another.

Once upon a time, one Jeroboam came to power in the northern Kingdom of Israel. To consolidate his power, he had fashioned two molten calves as a substitute for the cherubim in Jerusalem's Ark. He placed each of them in a public area, one in Bethel and the other in Dan, and announced to his subjects that their God was now present atop each alternate throne seat.

Within one month of Adar, on the ninth day, Rabbi J, Rabbi E, and Rabbi D expressed a momentary show of absolute unity, for they were all mad towards this turn of events. They then shared with each other their different reasons for their anger.

Said Rabbi J, "Just how exactly can those accursed things not be molten?"

Said Rabbi E, "With God, they're not supposed to worship that way! What has been made are so-called 'gods' of gold!"

Said Rabbi D, "That abomination of a rogue king rebelled against the Jerusalem cult! The key worship is supposed to happen only in Jerusalem!"

Stepped in Rabbi R, who asked, "I know you're all upset, but perhaps you could channel your anger and frustration towards constructive writing? We've got deadlines to meet for Project Bible, you know."

"Agreed! We need to write polemics against this!" the three who posed as scribes declared emphatically, before staring at Rabbi P.

"You and that rogue cult!" they accused their colleague, bullied him, and kicked him out of the scribal house for the rest of the day.

They then went to work by themselves, writing their own separate polemic against the turn of religious events. No argument for the sake of Heaven happened on this very day, for the discourse was broken for the entire day. For his part, Rabbi P sat humbly outside the scribal house, in submission before the three inside.

The heavenly voice was most disappointed by this turn of events, as well.

Night came. The three went to sleep, which gave Rabbi R the opportunity to let his bullied colleague back in quietly. The former showed the latter the polemics that had been written, each depicting a collective sin involving a molten calf. In the interest of pursuing peace, Rabbi P wrote humbly, with the aim of extricating the founder of his priestly caste from the written fury of his colleagues.


	18. The Very First Hagbah

**The Very First Hagbah**

"This is the Torah that Moses set before the Israelites, at the LORD's bidding through Moses." (Ashkenazi Hagbah after the Torah reading)

It was time for Rabbi D to flaunt his treasured scroll before his standing colleagues. He opened his scroll in the sight of all of them, then raised it to make sure they could see the words.

Having his back turned on them, he smirked, then began, "This is the Teaching that Moses set before the Israelites." [1]

"This is the true teaching, the correct account, the entirety of God's words needed for Project Bible," he stressed, "not any of your legal collections and narratives. Not yours, Rabbi P, with your second-rate, so-called 'eternal statutes.' Not yours, Rabbi E, with your superceded Book of the Covenant. Not yours, Rabbi J, with your very lousy, third-rate attempt at a so-called 'legal collection.'"

Rabbi P was downright miffed at the blasphemous audacity of his colleague. In his mind, it was his very own legal collection which was the single correct version of what had been Divinely commanded. It alone contained all the commandments and regulations that had been Divinely enjoined, even on the steppes of Moab. [2]

The offended scribe reacted the only he could during this flaunting, by raising his hand and extending the middle finger.

Rabbi E was also downright miffed at the audacity, for his colleague had not even made any literary complements to his older material. He reminded himself that all that had been Divinely spoken, and all that was to be done faithfully, had been contained in his legal collection alone. [3]

The offended scribe followed the lead of Rabbi P, by raising his hand and extending the middle finger.

Rabbi J felt no less insulted by the scoffing of his colleague, who more or less did away with what he believed were the authentic Ten Commandments. He too raised his hand and extended the middle finger.

Seeing all this from the back, Rabbi R facepalmed doubly, for one facepalm would simply not do. The heavenly voice empathized with this humble reaction to this embarrassment that was the very first hagbah.

* * *

_Author's Note: Folks, use the pinky finger when the Torah scroll is lifted, not the middle finger!_

_[1] Deuteronomy 4:44, which has been argued by scholars to be the original introduction to what would be finalized as the Book of Deuteronomy._

_[2] Since Leviticus 26:46 is used elsewhere, a paraphrase of Numbers 36:13 is used here, instead._

_[3] Since Exodus 24:3 is used elsewhere, a paraphrase of Exodus 24:7 is used here, instead._


	19. Lying Pens, Bad Laws

**Lying Pens, Bad Laws**

Repetition:

The House of D declared, "Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it" [1];  
And the House of P declared, "These are the laws, rules, and instructions that the LORD established, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people." [2]

One day, two rival teachers sat in the same study room within the scribal house. The two of them, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of R. D. and Rabbi Ezekiel in the name of R. P., even sat across one another, reading and evaluating the various legal collections before their eyes.

Rabbi Jeremiah had three legal collections before his eyes. None of them had been produced by his House, the House of D. Two of them commanded the sacrifice of firstborn baby boys. The third instituted a whole slew of superfluous sacrificial rituals such as burnt offerings and sin offerings, stipulated onerous Sanctuary tithes, and even wavered on the subject of sacrificial cult centralization.

Likewise, Rabbi Ezekiel had three legal collections before his eyes. None of them had been produced by his House, the House of P. Two of them commanded the sacrifice of firstborn baby boys. The third accommodated the secular slaughter of clean sacrificial animals due to cult centralization, did away with fallow laws for Sabbatical years, and even permitted divorce.

The two raised their heads to glance at one another rather angrily.

"What garbage is all this?" Rabbi Jeremiah yelled first, "God did not command our ancestors concerning child sacrifice! God did not command our ancestors concerning burnt offerings, grain offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, consecration offerings, or peace offerings, either!"

"Bad laws! Bad laws!" Rabbi Ezekiel yelled next, "Very, very bad laws! All that is before me sanctions murder in one form or another!"

"Lying pen of the scribes!" the former ratcheted up his heated rhetoric, "You can't say you possess what is Divinely inspired!"

"Sacrilege!" the latter shot back, "You can't say that you possess laws that are good and rules by which we can live! You've put forward some really bad laws!"

Above all this, the heavenly voice was most frustrated that these two did not focus their efforts exclusively on child sacrifice and real ritual murder in general.

* * *

_Author's Note: There, the first proper Talmudic spoof as of October 2019, since the "gemara" starts with a "mishnah!"_

_In real life, of course, there is no scholarly consensus on who "Rabbi" Jeremiah had in mind as a polemical target when composing what would become Jeremiah 7:21-22 and 8:8: texts by "Rabbi J" and "Rabbi E" that may have been supportive of child sacrifice, the entire ritualistic corpus of "Rabbi P," the commitment of the traditions of "Rabbi D" to written form, or the potential moral hypocrisy of those who made that commitment to writing._

_Likewise, there is no scholarly consensus on who "Rabbi" Ezekiel had in mind as a polemical target when composing what would become Ezekiel 20:25-26: texts by "Rabbi J" and "Rabbi E" that may have been supportive of child sacrifice, or the entire secular corpus of "Rabbi D."_

_[1] Deuteronomy 13:1.  
[2] Leviticus 26:46._


	20. Repetition Not Understood

**Repetition Not Understood**

"Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: 'It is not in the heavens' (Deut. 30:12)." (_Babylonian Talmud_, Bava Metzia 59b)

One day, Rabbi R took an abbreviated break from the debates involving Rabbi J, Rabbi E, Rabbi P, and Rabbi D, debates meant to fulfill Project Bible. In his study room, a collage of six distinct texts came to his attention.

_The House of J declared, "And the LORD said to Moses: Write down these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and Israel." [1]_

_[…]_

_The House of E declared, "Moses went and repeated to the people all the commands of the LORD and all the rules; and all the people answered with one voice, saying, 'All the things that the LORD has commanded we will do!'" [2]_

_[…]_

_Rabbi C in the name of R.D. declared, "Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them.—And all the people shall say, Amen." [3]_

_[…]_

_The House of D declared, "Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin you: neither add to it nor take away from it." [4]_

_[…]_

_The House of P declared, "These are the commandments and regulations that the LORD enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the steppes of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho." [5]_

_[…]_

_Rabbi H in the name of R.P. declared, "These are the laws, rules, and instructions that the LORD established, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people." [6]_

The heavenly voice manifested itself so that the reader, whose comprehension capacity had proven to be most limited, could listen and then truly understand.

"What say you of this repetition?" the former inquired.

The latter girded his loins, for he was about to answer a Divine inquiry.

"Sovereign Master," he spoke, "these schools and esteemed individuals are the great teachers of those whom You restored from exile. Their points of view are the teaching. They are reaching quite a consensus on the significance of Your commandments."

The Divine speaker was not impressed.

"One day, some smart aleck will declare that you, Rabbi R, are the human teacher, and that all these matters are your teaching," a prediction was made known, "For now, it is Moses who is the human teacher, and these matters his teaching."

"Holy One," the human panicked, "Heaven forbid that this should happen! What will become of these schools and esteemed individuals?"

It was time for Divine rebuke to be made known.

"You have only yourself to blame," came the Divine speech, "With your lips, you have proclaimed your colleagues as legitimate co-contributors. With your pen, however, you have obscured your place as merely one contributor!"

"But," the human attempted a counter, "Your Instruction is surely not in Heaven!"

Fortunately, the heavenly voice was prepared for this attempt at justifying human interpretation of the Instruction, over and above Divine action.

"It sure is not," came the Divine rebuttal, "It should be with them, those whom you have flattened with your pen! It should be with them, so that they may instruct, and that those who listen may engage, choose, and observe with honesty of mind."

It became clear to the heavenly voice that millennia would have to pass. Rabbi R was incapable of understanding the polyphonic repetition presented as a frank presentation of competing claims to exclusive authority by the competing schools and esteemed individuals who stood by their respective collections of laws as the only Divinely inspired instruction.

* * *

_Author's Note: There, the second Talmudic spoof as of May 2020, since most of the "gemara" follows a "mishnah!"_

_This chapter was written as constructive criticism of the literary conduct of "Rabbi R," of Franz Rosenzweig's well-known statement on fidelity to that perspective, and of particular congruity or unity arguments within the modern study of the Bible. Naturally, it is more serious than either the fanfic's teaser or "The Very First Hagbah."_

_[1] Exodus 34:27._

_[2] Exodus 24:3._

_[3] Deuteronomy 27:26._

_[4] Deuteronomy 13:1._

_[5] Numbers 36:13._

_[6] Leviticus 26:46._


	21. Can God Lie?

**Can God Lie?**

God commanded, "You shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another."

Rabbi E was punctilious in committing these words to writing. [1]

So was Rabbi P. [2]

So was Rabbi D. [3]

Rabbi J, however, was preoccupied with another matter, even though it had to do with lying.

Sometime later, they got into an argument.

"Listen," began Rabbi J, "God can lie."

"What?" snapped Rabbi E, "Are you high on something?"

"Long ago, around the time of the Divine conception of Isaac," explained the former, "Sarah remarked to visitors that Abraham was too old for reproduction. However, when God informed him of the Divine conception, he did not relay those same words. Instead, he relayed that his wife thought she herself was too old for reproduction."

"God spared Abraham the embarrassment of hearing his wife's snide remark," he noted, "and one side of this was the maintenance of peace in the home."

"Great!" Rabbi P interjected, "This is coming from one who can't make up his mind on whether Adam and Eve ought to die on the spot for eating of that oh-so-forbidden tree of knowledge."

"God is holy," he continued, "and because lying does not fit with being holy, God does not tell lies, not even little white lies. Furthermore, God is too grand to do something such as lying, even of the little white variety."

It was time for Rabbi D to bring in a more nuanced perspective.

"Whether God lies is irrelevant," he spoke, "Still, Divine deception is possible. The presence of false prophets to tempt us to foreign worship is a test based on deceit, for God has command over lying spirits. Oh, and Divine deception of true prophets is possible, too, not to mention deception of our people in other ways."

Having not had the opportunity to explain his perspective, Rabbi E took his turn.

"Listen," he enjoined, "God is not human, so as to do something such as lying."

"With so many things to attend to," he continued, "I don't think God has the time to come close to us just for the sake of stooping down to our level by doing something like lying or even deceiving in general."

While Rabbi R took in everything that was said, the heavenly voice could not have agreed more with Rabbi E.

* * *

_Author's Note: Supporting the affirmative argument of "Rabbi D" are passages in works of pan-Deuteronomism within the Prophets: 1 Kings 22:23, as well as Jeremiah 4:10 and 20:7._

_As for "Rabbi E," since he did not believe in Divine omnipotence or Divine omniscience, he did not believe in Divine omnipresence, also. His argument against the idea of Divine deception is consistent with his idea of a distant Deity._

_[1] Exodus 23:7._

_[2] Leviticus 19:11._

_[3] Deuteronomy 27:18._


End file.
